But do you see how specific your wording is now?

Nope.

I'm arguing that the argument "theft is theft" works because mechanically speaking, something of value is being taken.

Where your panties are getting twisted is where you're somehow trying to make me take a side here. Read again:

But there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media is not the same thing as depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment.

That's a rhetorical elaboration of "theft is theft."

But there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that

"Simply put"

failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media

"Theft"

is not the same thing as

"Is"

depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment.

"Theft."

Listen closely: I am a dues-paying, unionized creative in Hollywood. Prior to that I was an in-the-trenches creative in the music industry. By my rough estimation hundreds of dollars' worth of my dues have been spent directly on lobbying for stricter enforcement against piracy.

I am also a member of three private trackers.

The situation is complex. Those in favor of preserving the old order at any cost see only simplicity. Those in favor of looser restrictions on intellectual property see nuance.

My "argument" is that nuance cannot be turned into simplicity. If "you" want to "win" this "argument" you have to get the other side to see nuance, not attempt to find the simplicity in your argument...

...because it isn't there.